CFI - Cinematic Forecasting and Investment Assurance LLC ™

Investor Opportunities in Motion Picture Profits through Feature Film Box-Office Forecasts / Pre-Production Script Development / Cinematic Archetype Casting / Component Formulation Design / U.S. and Global Market Consulting & Mass Audience Forecasting

1.1 future film forecasts

1.2 last weekend forecast

1.3 - 2011 profits & loss

1.4 - 2010 profits & loss

1.5 - 2009 profits & loss

1.6 - 2008 profits & loss

1.7 - 2007 profits & loss

1.8 - 2006 profits & loss

1.9 - 2005 profits & loss

1.10 - 2004-2002 charts

1.11 - 2001-1999 charts

1.12 CFI CONTACT INFO

2.1 intro to CFI

2.2 twenty-one questions

2.3 beta-testing complete

2.4 products & services

2.5 application & benefit

2.6 comparing methodology

2.7 client applications

2.8 four screen dynamics

2.9 playability errors

2.10 quadrant solutions

2.11 forecasting accuracy

2.12 edge on competition

3.1 film components

3.2 simple components

3.3 complex components

3.4 resolution components

3.5 horrific components

3.6 the two behaviorisms

3.7 audience psychology

3.8 suspending disbeliefs

3.9 four media approach

3.10 reading their faces

3.11 observing audiences

3.12 observing emotions

4.1 archetype vs. stereo

4.2 modern archetypes

4.3 good/bad guys ID key

4.4 line by line paradigm

4.5 face mapping tools

4.6 the classic archetype

4.7 casting examples

4.8 writers and archetype

4.9 subtypes & essences

4.10 act as VS. act like

4.11 Jung archetypal map

4.12 the MBDI vs. MBTI

5.1 script consulting

5.2 assist flow chart

5.3 production benefits

5.4 database tracking

5.5 client confidential

5.6 forecast fallibility

5.7 how the others fail

5.8 weekend mentality

5.9 neuromarketing news

5.10 neuromarket article

5.11 film neuromarketing

5.12 older methodologies

6.1 old studio systems

6.2 studio system assists

6.3 agent & mgr. benefits

6.4 improvements 4 talent

6.5 attending to imagery

6.6 the best attributes

6.7 talent research

6.8 star power ratings

6.9 star client results

6.10 secret sex chemistry

6.11 archetype inventory

6.12 sub-type inventory

7.1 CFI contact info

7.2 similar companies

7.3 actor archetype lists

7.4 bibliography to study

7.5 urls continued study

7.6 ROIs for 1999 & 2000

7.7 ROIs for 2001 & 2002

7.8 ROIs for 2003 & 2004

7.9 ROIs for 2005 & 2006

7.10 ROIs for 2007 & 2008

7.11 ROIs for 2009 - 2010

7.12 ROIs for 2011 - 2012

page 2.9


You have an idea or you’re given a pitch
and you have to decide if it has ‘marketability’…

Yet every film distributed in the
U.S. had someone who decided
that it was “marketable” – and 75% of those films failed to clear a profit
.


How could the audience 'smell' that the film contained something to avoid? 
Those films were marketed consistently well before opening weekend,
but when they came to the theater, nobody showed up.
  

Why?  There was a problem that the studio hadn’t counted on.
And this problem was seen by the audience weeks and months ahead of the opening.

The problem is the lack of 'playability'.



The film was remiss in playability. And an audience can sense problems in ‘playability’ the minute they see the marketing … long before the feature’s opening.

It was observed by film-going audiences through prerelease talk shows, TV interviews, previews of coming attractions, commercials, advertising graphics, key art, trailers on the Internet and in entertainment reviews.


Audiences stay home because of the lack of playability that was
visually and vocally ‘articulated’ before the film’s opening weekend.


Today’s sophisticated audiences have an innate psychological ability to discern a film’s playability from watching the actor’s faces and their telegraphed feelings in trailers.  They judge the storyline playability from what they see was actually produced…not what they imagined would be created when they were surveyed beforehand.
  

Because the studio researched the mass audience before production (by asking them what kind of story points they imagined they would like to see) and then they produced what they thought the audience had indicated, the studio blames the marketing guys claiming they must have sold the product incorrectly.
  
But in reality, the film itself contained the playability errors that couldn’t have been sold to and audience no matter what kind of marketing they conjured up.  A marketable film with negative issues in playability can’t succeed at the
U.S. box-office – no matter how marketable the studio or distributor thinks the film is. 
 
Even if the marketing guys had tried to hide the lack of playability in marketing, the audience still detects playability issues from the projection of the talent’s articulation – so positive word-of-mouth is lost and the film tanks.  It doesn’t matter how good your story-points are if you have problems in the way you formulated the presentation.  If you ignore playability it doesn’t matter how well you market.
 
But if a film has playability formulated correctly, audiences will seek that playability out and tell their friends to go see it as well – even if pre-production surveys said they wouldn’t see it.  Once they see the faces and hear the voices articulated in pre-release marketing, they are yours.


At CFI™, it’s all about guaranteeing your playability and the way audiences relate to what you produce for them.  It’s all about the audience and what they think about what they’re seeing...or smelling.


                           
CFI website map for 2011

1.1 FUTURE FILM Forecasts
2.1 Introduction to CFI
3.1 Unseen Components
4.1 Archetype vs. Stereo
5.1 Screenplay Consulting
6.1 Old Studio System
7.1 CFI CONTACT INFO
1.2 LAST WEEKEND Forecast
2.2 Twenty-One Questions
3.2 Simple Components
4.2 Modern Archetypes
5.2 Assist Flow Chart
6.2 Studio System Assists
7.2 Similar Companies
1.3 2011 Profit & Loss Chart
2.3 Beta-Testing Complete
3.3 Complex Components
4.3 Good/Bad Guys ID Keys
5.3 Production Benefits
6.3 Agent & Mgr. Benefits
7.3 Actor Archetype Lists
1.4 2010 Profit & Loss Chart
2.4 Products & Services
3.4 Resolution Components
4.4 Line by Line Paradigm
5.4 Database Tracking
6.4 Improvements 4 Talent
7.4 Bibliography for Study 
1.5 2009 Profit & Loss Chart
2.5 Application & Benefit
3.5 Horrific Components
4.5 Face Mapping Tools
5.5 Client Confidential
6.5 Attending to Imagery
7.5 URLs to Continue Study
1.6 2008 Profit & Loss Chart
2.6 Comparing Methodology
3.6 The Two Behaviors
4.6 The Classic Archetypes
5.6 Forecast Fallibility
6.6 The Best Attributes
7.6 ROIs for 1999 - 2000
1.7 2007 Profit & Loss Chart
2.7 Client Applications
3.7 Audience Psychology
4.7 Casting Examples
5.7 How the Others Fail
6.7 Talent Research
7.7 ROIs for 2001 - 2002
1.8 2006 Profit & Loss Chart
2.8 Four Screen Dynamics
3.8 Suspending Disbelief
4.8 Writers and Archetype
5.8 Weekend Mentality
6.8 Star Power Ratings
7.8 ROIs for 2003 - 2004
1.9 2005 Profit & Loss Chart
2.9 Playability Errors
3.9 Four Media Approach
4.9 Subtypes & Essences
5.9 Neuromarketing News
6.9 Star Client Results
7.9 ROIs for 2005 - 2006
1.10 2004 - 2002 P & L Chart
2.10 Quadrant Solutions
3.10 Reading Their Faces
4.10 Act As vs. Act Like
5.10 Neuromarket Article
6.10 Secret Sex Chemistry
7.10 ROIs for 2007 - 2008
1.11 2001 - 1999 P & L Chart
2.11 Forecasting Accuracy
3.11 Observing Audiences
4.11 Jung Archetypal Map
5.11 Film Neuromarketing
6.11 Archetype Inventory
7.11 ROIs for 2009 - 2010
1.12 CFI CONTACT INFO
2.12 Edge on Competition
3.12 Observing Emotions
4.12 The MBDI vs. MBTI
5.12 Older Methodologies
6.12 Sub-Type Inventory
7.12 Senior Analyst Bio